Back From Jerusalem
I have just returned from a week in Jerusalem with much to report regarding a number of important matters related to the Talpiot tomb. I have not had an opportunity to post much the past few days but I will try to catch up in the coming days. I was able to spend most of a day studying the seven Talpiot tomb ossuaries in the IAA warehouse (Yehuda son of Yeshua is “on tour” in the United States; Maria is in the storeroom of the Israel Museum) in good natural light, inscribed as well as uninscribed, plain as well as decorated, inside and out. I also consulted with half a dozen experts in Jerusalem regarding various aspects of the story, from epigraphy, DNA, and patina tests to clarifications regarding the discovery of the tomb itself in February, 1980.
I want to finish out my previous post on the “Top Twenty Fictions” regarding the tomb, but even before finishing that rather lengthy undertaking I want to comment on the story in the Jerusalem Post on Wednesday generated by Stephen Pfann, Ph.D’s Blog entry (“University of the Holy Land“) announced with an on-and-off flashing Logo saying “New” and headlined: Cracks in the Foundation: The Jesus Family Tomb Story/The Experts Weigh In and Bow Out/Disclaimers from the Film’s Own Experts/ON THE RECORD.
In my view the story produced by correspondant Lekfkovits was full of mischaracterizations and unfounded assertions, and its foundation, the Blog entry by Dr. Pfann, was also quite misleading. Not surprising, have been the multiple dozens of spinoffs to the story by various media and in the Blog world, with titles such as “Experts Back Away from Jesus Tomb Claims” and “Experts are Now Backtracking.” On the part of some there is an eager interest in anything that might counter the possibility that the Talpiot tomb might belong to the Jesus family, and for others, less committed to an apologetic stance, such headlines on this sort of story were understandably irresistable. I have wanted as much as I can in my own work on the Talpiot tomb to separate the site and its evaluation from the discussion of the issues related to the film itself and its role in the ensuring heated discussion. That is of course not wholly possible and my intent is to address, as much as possible, the factual matters related to this later flash of media coverage on Talpiot. In the end I am confident that the truth will win out and that a time will come when the Talpiot tomb site, and all we can know about it, will be considered in a less biased manner and with a more professional style and approach. I realize it is not the tomb of Socrates were are talking about here, but the tomb of Jesus, but from a historical viewpoint there should be no difference with regard to the methods and parameters of research.
